JOHNSON et al. v. JONES
515 U.S. 304 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public official defendant asserting a qualified immunity defense may not immediately appeal a district court's denial of a summary judgment motion when the order is based on a determination that the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Facts:
- Houston Jones, a diabetic, was discovered on the street by police officers while he was experiencing an insulin seizure.
- The officers, believing Jones was intoxicated, arrested him and transported him to the police station.
- Following the incident, Jones was hospitalized and found to have several broken ribs.
- Jones alleged that five police officers used excessive force during his arrest and beat him at the station.
- In a deposition, Jones testified that unnamed officers had used excessive force against him.
- Three of the accused officers admitted in their depositions to being present at the scene of the arrest and in or near the booking room when Jones was there.
Procedural Posture:
- Houston Jones filed a 'constitutional tort' action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five police officers in federal district court.
- Three of the defendant officers moved for summary judgment, asserting a qualified immunity defense and arguing there was no evidence of their involvement.
- The U.S. District Court denied the officers' motion, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of fact for trial.
- The three officers (appellants) filed an immediate interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the officers' 'evidence insufficiency' claim.
- The officers (petitioners) were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court of appeals have jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal of a district court's order denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, when the order is based on a determination that the pretrial record presents a genuine issue of fact for trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. A district court's determination that the summary judgment record raises a genuine issue of fact is not a "final decision" subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. While Mitchell v. Forsyth established that denials of qualified immunity based on pure issues of law are immediately appealable, this does not extend to denials based on evidence sufficiency. A fact-based determination is not 'conceptually distinct' from the merits of the plaintiff's claim, as required by the collateral order doctrine's separability prong. Furthermore, policy considerations, such as the institutional expertise of trial courts in managing factual records and the inefficient use of appellate resources, weigh against allowing such interlocutory appeals. Allowing appeals of fact-based summary judgment denials would entangle appellate courts in pretrial fact-finding, cause significant delays, and undermine the final judgment rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of interlocutory appeals for public officials asserting qualified immunity. By drawing a sharp distinction between abstract legal questions and fact-based evidence sufficiency determinations, the Court reinforced the final judgment rule and the distinct roles of trial and appellate courts. The ruling prevents defendants from using the qualified immunity doctrine to force an immediate appeal simply because a trial court finds a genuine dispute over what happened. Consequently, it ensures that cases with legitimate factual disputes proceed to trial, thereby balancing the protection of public officials from frivolous lawsuits with a plaintiff's right to have their claims heard by a jury.
Unlock the full brief for JOHNSON et al. v. JONES